Skyrim: A Cultural Feminist Perspective

     Skyrim, an open world RPG/video game that was released in 2011, shows several examples of feminist perspective in its characters’ backstories and quest storylines. In fact, I almost wrote about how Aela The Huntress is an example of radical feminism. I instead chose, however, to discuss the character Serana, who I see as a subtle example of the cultural feminist perspective.

     Those who have played Skyrim and are familiar with the character may be wondering how Serana serves as an example of cultural feminism, likely struggling to think of an example. I personally believe, however, that the subtlety of her part in a feminist perspective is what makes it such a great example!

     Serana is the daughter of Lord Harkon, the leader of the Volkihar vampire clan. Serana—and her clan—lives in Castle Volkihar. I’m sure this is up for debate, but she’s essentially a princess, being the daughter of a community leader in a time reminiscent of/based on the Victorian era, she even lives in a castle! Likewise, she is treated with respect and grace by castle inhabitants. When she returns home to the castle, the gatekeeper even refers to her as “Lady Serana.” Serana is also emotional. She is a bit closed off at first, but as she gets to know the protagonist, she begins to open up about traumas, the hard relationship she had with her parents, the pain she feels in relation to past events, the pain she feels in relation to current events. 
All of this together takes a three-dimensional, interesting character and transforms her into an example of cultural feminism for one reason: she is never shamed, nor ashamed. Serana is a woman in a feminine role within her community, yet she is respected, not berated or teased for her role. She is openly emotional and doesn’t shy away from that fact, nor is she belittled for showing her emotions and being vulnerable. She is also sassy and sarcastic and playful—yet she is never shamed for those traits, nor does she indicate a desire to be more stoic.

     What I love about Serana is that the things making her unabashedly feminine aren’t the obvious outward signs that are often used in media to display femininity—such as wearing bright dresses or having a penchant for cleaning. These are good things, of course, but much of Serana’s femininity is the type that the player character has to gain her trust to see, choosing kind and considerate dialogue choices. She’s confident in who she is, and that’s a wonderful thing to see in pop culture!

My question is; do you agree that Serana’s an example of the cultural feminist perspective? Why or why not?

The Reveals of Commodification in American Advertising

    The Frankfurt school argues that Popular Culture is a tool for reinforcing cultural and social authority. Through control of the Culture Industry, “elites” can manipulate the “masses” by standardizing cultural outputs. The Frankfurt school puts little faith in the abilities of the working class to overcome the elite’s control of the Culture Industry. The Birmingham School, by contrast, gives more confidence to the masses. Raymond Williams identifies that the masses can be a positive social force, a challenge to commodification. Hall goes on to claim that popular culture actually emanates from the working class, giving authenticity to popular culture. The elites often commercialize popular culture but do not always do so successfully.

    In 2017, Pepsi attempted to commodify the Black Lives Matter movement by creating an advertisement that borrowed imagery from the anti-police brutality marches. The commercial starred Kendall Jenner who walks through a group of social protestors and offers a Pepsi to an officer. The officer takes the drink and smiles, leading the protestors to rejoice. The masses quickly rejected this commercial, seeing it as a tasteless attempt to mimic and profit from a serious social movement of the masses. It was insulting to insist a simple soft drink could cause protestors and law enforcement to put aside their conflicts and unify. The widespread rejection of this commercial led Pepsi to pull it from use and write a formal apology. The masses rejected this example of commodification and rallied as a positive social force.

    The history of tobacco advertisements also provides insight into the social force of the masses. The advertising of cigarettes on television was banned in 1971, with smokeless tobacco seeing the same restrictions in 1986. Resistance continued in 1992 when the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act of 1992 banned tobacco advertising and sponsorships at sporting events. Advertising tobacco products at sporting events would be a means for the elites to sell their products at events that are representative of popular culture, promoting the existence and purpose of the Culture Industry. Laws that prohibited the advertising of tobacco put an end to this action of the elites.

    These legal changes benefit the health of the working class, even when at the financial cost of elites, evidence that the working class can actively resist the efforts of the Culture Industry. However, as an alternative, one could argue that the decision to end tobacco advertising at sporting events was an action promoted by elites because they have an interest in having a healthy working class.

    This leads me to my question. Is the long campaign to prohibit tobacco advertising at sporting events a representation of the Frankfurt School, where the elites constructed and managed the change; or, is it a representation of the Birmingham school, where the masses challenged the Culture Industry and championed a win?

Discussing Repetitive Cliches or “Tropes” in Romance Novels & Movies

Discussing Repetitive Cliches or “Tropes” in Romance Novels & Movies 

“In Adorno & Horkheimer’s “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment and Mass Deception," they argue that the details of many of our popular culture texts are interchangeable.  Basically, what they are referring to are the cliches that exist within different types of artifact.”

I have seen this repetition of similar elements in popular culture through trending romance novels. With BookTube and BookTok becoming a popular form of social media for reading communities to offer and receive reading recommendations, many book influencers offer the “trope” of the romance novel in their description before recommending (or not recommending) the book. 

These tropes in romance novels seem to be interchangeable – this “certain structure tends to emerge over and over again.” So what is a trope and what tropes are there?

A romance trope is “a plot device or theme used within a romance novel giving a recognizable starting point to the story that a reader can recognize.”
https://www.shereadsromancebooks.com/romance-genre-and-romance-tropes-guide/#:~:text=A%20romance%20trope%20is%20a,using%20this%20common%20plot%20device.

Some popular tropes include enemies to lovers, love triangle, forbidden love, forced proximity, opposites attract, mistaken identity, love at first sight, friends to lovers, childhood friends to lovers, fake-dating, and more. The film Harry Met Sally might claim “opposites attract,” while the novel Twilight is known for its love triangle between Bella, Jacob, and Edward. These tropes aren’t revolutionary, as “forbidden love” could be used to describe the romance of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.
https://neverenoughnovels.com/2022/02/22/romance-tropes-list/

So here are the major questions:
Romeo and Juliet was written in 1597, so how have we not gotten sick of the forbidden romance trope after all these years? How have the repetition of these tropes not ruined the theme of romance completely? 

Logistically, we should be tired of it. But perhaps it is the familiarity that allows us to relate (and after all, don’t we all want to relate to a fairytale-esque romance?) and truly connect with the story. 

Additionally, shouldn’t the sharing of the “trope” be a major spoiler and dissuade the reader from picking up the novel altogether? It would seem that it takes the mystery out of the plot and gives it all away. Instead, revealing the trope seems to do the opposite. In a world filled with over-consumption and a plethora of reading options, describing novels by a quick trope is an easy and efficient way for readers to find a novel that they will most likely connect to and enjoy the most. In the beginning, it may be fun to not know how the characters will fall in love, but a well-read romance reader will quickly be drawn to and discover their favorite tropes. 

What are your favorite tropes? Do you agree or disagree with giving away the trope in romance novels and movies?

Charlie Bucket: A Representation of Working Class Struggles in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

 In the classic film, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the character of Charlie Bucket serves as a representation of the struggles and aspirations of the working class in capitalist societies. Through the lens of critical theory, specifically the Frankfurt and Birmingham schools of thought, we can analyze how Charlie's character embodies the themes of power, domination, and class struggle in the film.

The Frankfurt School, also known as the Institute for Social Research, was a group of German-Jewish intellectuals who fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s. They developed critical theory as a means of analyzing the ways in which capitalist societies reproduce and maintain inequality and domination. One of their key insights was that culture, including literature, film, and other forms of art, plays a crucial role in this process.

Charlie Bucket is the embodiment of the working class in the film, living in poverty with his family in a small house. Despite his poverty, Charlie is shown to be a hardworking and determined young boy, always striving for a better life. He represents the struggle of the working class to survive and thrive in a capitalist society, where access to resources and opportunities is limited. Through Charlie's character, the film critiques the way in which capitalist societies reproduce and maintain inequality and domination. 

The Birmingham School, also known as the Cultural Studies Group, was a group of British intellectuals who emerged in the 1960s. They were heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School and developed a theory of cultural studies that focused on the ways in which culture and media are used to maintain and reproduce social relations of power and domination.

In the film, Charlie Bucket's character also embodies the themes of power and domination. He is shown to be at first a passive recipient of Wonka's gifts, a representation of the way in which the working class is often seen as passive and submissive in capitalist societies. However, as the film progresses, Charlie is shown to be a complex and capable individual who makes his own decisions. Through Charlie's character, the film critiques the traditional representation of the working class as passive and submissive, and instead portrays them as active agents in their own lives.

In conclusion, the character of Charlie Bucket in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory serves as a representation of the struggles and aspirations of the working class in capitalist societies. Through the lens of critical theory, specifically the Frankfurt and Birmingham schools of thought, we can see how the film uses Charlie's character to critique the ways in which capitalist societies reproduce and maintain inequality and domination. What other elements of the film do you think reflect the themes of power, domination, and class struggle?

Fan Funded. Commercialization or “Authentic” Culture?

When multibillion dollar movie studios create a movie, they measure its success through the number of ticket sales in theaters. Often, they hedge their bets on safe investments like popular book series which were in turn passed through the gate keeping process of the publishing industry and evaluated for profitability.

Adorno describes the movie and radio industries as simply pretending to be art since mass culture acts as a monopoly (Adorno 1) When the show production process plays out in reverse, with fans fully funding a show prior to its creation, it complicates the line between the cultural industry and authenticity.

When the popular YouTube series “Critical Role” tried to pitch their Dungeons and Dragons gameplay to be made into an animated series, no studios were willing to take them on. This reinforces how the people “right at the top” (PowerPoint Slide 5) are the ones who initially decide what is allowed to be even considered for mass consumption for the masses. In turn, CR decided to get their series fan funded, setting a Kickstarter goal of $750,000. They proceeded to fund it within a few hours, closing in at $11,385,449 by the campaign's conclusion.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s

Unlike corporate movie studios that can be interpreted as one of the pillars of the “culture industry” because they solely seek to “search for profits”, Critical Role’s show is funded by fans acting as investors with the goal not being astronomical profit, but the sake of the art (Storey 5).

With the newsworthy popularity of their 2019 Kickstarter campaign, this was no doubt fuel for film studios to push forward a cinema release of a 2023 Dungeons and Dragon movie. For reference the previous DnD theater release was around twenty-three years ago. Hall describes cultural change as when a cultural form or practice is "actively pushed aside" for something else (Hall 6). DnD was initially a part of the culture that was pushed aside, but now it has experienced a revival.

With Critical Role going from having a niche YouTube presence to having a show presented on Amazon Prime, Marcuse might argue that it has lost its authenticity by joining “the established order” through its “reproduction and display on a massive scale” (Marcuse, 1968)

Do you think that fan funded media products can be regarded as “authentic” art? What if they sign an exclusive contract with a streaming service that in turn makes fan backers pay an additional fee to view the product they helped fund?

Class Consciousness in the Red Rising Trilogy

I read a lot of young adult books, despite being well above the age of the average target audience. I think that young adult (YA) literature, particularly those with science fiction and dystopian themes, appeal to so many people because they focus on rebellion, empowerment, and they are often very intense and engaging. Reading about dystopian futures and revolution also gives us a sense of control and power over what happens in our lives. We can suspend disbelief, delve into a world of fantasy, and play with ideas that usually aren't possible in the real world.

(YA science fiction books covers)

One of my favorite YA science fiction series that follows a Marxist premise is the Red Rising trilogy by Pierce Brown. It follows the story of Darrow, a young man from the lowest caste (the Reds) of a color-coded society, who is coming of age in a dystopian future. Darrow and his fellow Reds work all day in mines below the surface of Mars. They believe that the surface of Mars and other planets are inhabitable, so they believe they are working hard and sacrificing their lives to make Mars livable for the future of humanity. 

(Cover of Red Rising, first book in the original trilogy)

However, Darrow and others learn that they have been betrayed by the highcolors who have been exploiting the lowcolors' lives for wealth and power. The highcolors, of course, represent the upper class, the bourgeoisie, while the lowcolors like Darrow represent the proletariat. 

In the first book of the trilogy, Darrow is pulled into a world of rebellion and revolution as he infiltrates the Gold society. I don't want to spoil the story for anyone who wants to read the books, so I won't go into any more details about Darrow's journey, but the key takeaway is that oppression breeds revolution.

What do you think about YA science fiction and dystopian literature? Is it pandering to the audience or do you think that these types of books help us see the world and society from a different perspective?

Hegemony in the Glass Onion

Glass Onion, through a Marxist perspective, reveals those in society who have wealth are the individuals who wield great power and that the powerful use their power as leverage over others and for their own personal gain. The plot follows Detective Benoit Blanc as he participates in a murder-mystery party thrown by Miles Bron, a billionaire entrepreneur. Bron's "friends" all have some degree of power and influence thanks to Bron, who has played a role in the development of each of their respective careers and consistently uses his influence as leverage for their success. Blanc, a representation of the proletariat, attends the party through circumstance and has no previous connections to Bron, giving him freedom to make less bias judgements.

This film presents an oppositional argument about the hegemony of wealth. When the characters meet to board the boat that ferries them to the private island they are presented with an oral injection that provides protection from Covid-19. While the rest of the world struggles with the pandemic, living in social isolation and wearing facemasks, Miles Bron, because of wealth and status, possesses a vaccine that allows him and his guests to live without fear of infection. The film presents that the wealthy have advantages, like access to a vaccine, while the rest of society is forced to endure life without.

Bron's display of wealth and nonchalant attitude towards objects of high exchange value is apparent in the film. Bron possesses objects that express wealth and power; for example, when attendees arrive to a frozen, but melting ice sculpture, doubling as a dock, that is identified as a Banksy, Bron is playing “Blackbird” on a guitar. As stated by Bron, it is the guitar “Paul [McCartney] wrote it on.” He then throws the guitar to the ground, disregarding its “value,” while his guest reacts in shock and quickly jumps to save the guitar from damage. (See the video below) Bron recognizes the value of the guitar, but chooses to treat it with less respect because his wealth affords him the ability. Scenes like this show the absurdity of the wealthy and lead us to question why they have been granted their level of power.

The conclusion reveals an oppositional argument. We learn that Bron fakes his intelligence and is actually a narcissist seeking credit for developing something revolutionary. It is argued that the wealthy cannot be trusted. Blanc reveals that Bron stole the plans to the technology that made him wealthy, while the fuel he wants to share with the world that is meant to build his fame is a dangerous substance that has not been properly tested. The end of the film reveals the oppositional argument that society should not entrust power to the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. This film displays that we should place our trust in those who are deserving through their actions. Blanc, the representation of the proletariat, helps the audience achieve this realization. The only thing Blanc stands to gain from his revelations is the truth; it reveals a sense of righteousness in a society where the corrupt, Bron, are given blind allegiance by the masses simply because they have wealth.

What does the destruction of cultural artifacts, or texts, at the end of this film reveal about the film’s representation of the sites of struggle discussed by Sellnow in the chapter on New-Marxist Perspectives?

High versus Low Culture on BookTube

High versus Low Culture on BookTube

Dr. Stein shared a quote from Deanna Sellnow, who explained pop culture is “comprised of the everyday objects, actions, and events that influence people to believe and behave in certain ways.”

Many began reading again during the pandemic. TikTok, a social media application that focuses on short video content, also became extremely popular during the pandemic. Together, BookTok, a subgenre combining the hobby of reading into video content on TikTok has emerged. 

https://lithub.com/35-of-the-world-is-reading-more-during-the-pandemic-thanks-pandemic/

YouTube and TikTok are being used to advertise books, and a new sub genre within these platforms have emerged, called BookTube and BookTok. Publishing industries now partner with social media influencers to market their books, as the social media apps have increased book sales and the popularity of backlist titles, while also creating a space for literary discord. The channel being utilized for these messages impact both the communicators and the receivers. The communicators (social media influencers) are able to base entire careers and livelihoods in the social media book community while the receivers are being influenced by what books to consume. Because it has become such a large platform and because it “influences people to behave in certain ways” (purchasing and reading books in this case) this is becoming a major part of pop culture. 

What I have found to be frustrating though, is the attention and popularity “low culture” books are receiving. After discussing high culture versus low culture in our class this week, I have realized that this fits my frustration in BookTube. A lot of these influencers seem to be using the platform to maintain their social image, reading and promoting books because this is the “aesthetic” and popular thing to do. In turn, they are recommending the same books over and over again – usually easily digestible romance books.

Although I do enjoy these books, I consider these books (such as Colleen Hoover) to be low culture, especially in comparison to the reading I did for my undergraduate degree in English. Recently, I have discovered a graduate student named Noelle Gallagher who made a video promoting these “high culture” books that I have been dying to see on BookTube, sharing her experiences reading classics throughout her undergraduate English degree. 

Although I do wish more attention was given to classic literature and the genre of nonfiction and literary fiction, I am ecstatic that more people have delved into the world of reading (or rekindled their love for it) and think that any kind of reading (in quality or quantity) is commendable.

Modern Marilyn Turns To Kardashian Controversy

      One of the most iconic and famous popular culture icons throughout history has been Marilyn Monroe. Her "Happy Birthday Dress" (which she wore when she sang the endearing song to the President of the United States) is one of her most iconic looks, and has been preserved and stored with the upmost care over the years. It is very rarely touched or moved, but when it has been done it has always been done with gloves and more than one person. 

    Fast forward through time to the 2022 Met Gala-- when another one of America's most famous pop culture icons, Kim Kardashian made her appearance wearing Marilyn's dress. With a first look at the situation, it seems like Kim got special permission and it was a lovely tribute to the 50's and 60's star. 

 

        Once the media got a hold of the situation, more details arose and what seemed to be a beautiful tribute became a flaming controversy across all media platforms. There were a few points of interest to the media, but on of the biggest was that Kim was accused of damaging the dress while she wore it. The next biggest controversy that occurred was that Kim Kardashian had to lose 16 pounds in order to fit into the dress, and she did it in a very quick and unhealthy way. A lot of her fans were very upset by this because they thought that she was portraying that people should have to change themselves in order to fit into trendy clothes, or lose weight in a very unhealthy way to be pretty. 

        When faced and confronted with these accusations, pop culture icon Kardashian said that she did not damage the dress, and that she actually only had it on for 3-4 minutes. She also said that she had a worker from the place that handled the dress with her at all times. As for the unhealthy body weight accusation, Kardashian said that movie stars do it all the time to fill certain roles and it is acceptable, but she does it to fit in a dress and it is considered wrong? She also mentioned that she did not say "hey you should do this too!" and that she wishes her fans did not see it the way they do because that is not how she intended it to be. 

        According to the book The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture, in the first chapter--it states that "popular culture has the pervasive power to shape beliefs and behaviors." Which we can see in this example with Kim Kardashian. Do you believe that it is easier to be positively influenced and shaped or negatively influenced and shaped? We can see that both have happened with this scenario--some people were positively influenced by the "beautiful tribute to Marilyn Monroe" and fell even more in love with Kim. While others thought her example of losing weight was awful to her younger fans, showing them unhealthy habits. What side are you on? 

The True Crime Pop Culture Phenomenon

I want to start this post by pointing out that I absolutely love true crime and spend hours each week consuming books, news, and documentaries about crime.

True crime has been popular for decades, but in the last 5-10 years, the genre has absolutely exploded. Even if we are not seeking out true crime stories, they tend to make their way into popular media, especially in podcasts, film, and television. My interest in true crime has mostly been focused on the mystery and exploring the motives behind certain crimes. Some true crime fans' obsession with certain cases can be harmful to victims and their loved ones, so how do we find a balance between telling tasteful and respectful true crime stories and exploitation? 

One of my favorite true crime documentaries is the 2020 Netflix film called 'American Murder: The Family Next Door'. A documentary about the murder of Shanann Watts, her unborn son, and her two young daughters by her husband. The story is told almost exclusively through live footage, including police bodycam and interrogation footage. It is incredibly eerie and surreal watching and listening to the footage. After watching this, I really started to think about how to ethically consume true crime. Even though true crime is created to inform, it is ultimately meant to entertain, so I am essentially getting entertainment from someone else's tragedy. 

(Police bodycam footage from the day Shanann and the girls disappeared, featured in the Netflix documentary)

Recently, a dramatized version of Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes was released on Netflix. The series, 'Dahmer', was extremely popular and audiences loved it, but a family member of one of his victims came out in protest against the series, stating that it was just opening back up old wounds. Others criticized the series and others like it by pointing out that it 'festishizes' and even sexualizes serial killers. 

(Evan Peters as Jeffrey Dahmer in Netflix's Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, 2022)

However, I also just recently watched a docuseries called 'Vatican Girl: The Disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi', a case I had never heard of before the series was released. Not only does the series cover a truly puzzling crime, but it highlights the rampant sexual abuse that was/is happening in the Catholic church. I think that this series is a great example of how true crime can not only inform and entertain, but help open up new investigations and shed light on ongoing crimes. 

(Image of Emanuela Orlandi alongside her missing person poster)

I have heard that many true crime fans, particularly women, consume true crime as a subconscious effort to learn more about crime and victimization in the effort of protection and safety. However, heavy consumption of this type of media also spreads fear, skews our perception, and reinforces stereotypes. 

What do you think about the morality of true crime and its explosion in popularity? Is it harmful to victims and victims' loved ones? Do you think it skews our perception about the prevalence of crime? Do you think it's just a passing fad?

Heir, Spare, Overshare: Who Cares? Prince Harry and the Weaponization of Pop Culture

Living under a rock? If not, there's no escaping the glut of media focused on Prince Harry and Megan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, parents of two, California residents, and, depending on your point of view, media darlings or villains. Even if you haven't watched the Harry and Meghan Netflix series, or read Harry's recently released book, Spare, Harry and Meghan are everywhere you turn--in articles and on television, in interviews with Oprah and Colbert, carefully curating their image and "telling their side of the story." They're having, in short, a real pop culture moment (though I confess to some disappointment that the media has not yet re-christened Prince Harry as "Prince Spare-y," at least per my cursory Google search). 

But the Duke and Duchess's media campaign didn't begin with their Netflix series, or with the recent release of Spare. It began, for Prince Harry, the day that Buckingham Palace announced the then-Princess of Wales, Diana's, second pregnancy and hasn't let up since.  

Sellnow notes that pop culture reinforces ideologies of what is "normal, desirable, and appropriate" (2013, p.8). As the second-born son in what was arguably a golden age for the royals, what was normal, desirable, and appropriate for Prince Harry was certainly not normal and appropriate for the average citizen. Was it desirable? For many, it may have seemed so. What little girl in the 80s didn't want to be Princess Diana? What little boy wouldn't want to be a prince? But with these roles come enormous scrutiny, and Harry has made it clear that he blames the paparazzi for his mother's death in a car crash at age 36. His every boneheaded shenanigan as a young man (whether directly influenced by her loss or not), including his infamous wearing of a Nazi uniform to a costume party, was fodder for the press. Though playing dress-up as a Nazi is inexcusable, few people would want their worst teenage moments enshrined in a tabloid. Pop culture, in many ways, has created and sustained the royal family. And in Harry's eyes, it (via the paparazzi) killed his mother. So who would blame Harry for weaponizing it now? Certainly, the story of the monarchy is ripe for rhetorical criticism from multiple angles: feminist criticism. Neo-Marxism versus the Monarchy. Dramatistic. Neo-Aristolean.

A hallmark of pop culture is that consumers don't always realize its impact on their worldview and personal identities. Documentaries and memoirs, however, seem definitionally intended to evoke a deeply personal response, and that certainly is the case with Harry and Meghan's current ubiquity. I haven't watched their Netflix series or read Harry's memoir, but I know a surprising amount about their contents, almost by pop culture osmosis--and yes, I have some very specific, very personal, and very possibly uninformed opinions about their situation. At least, as Klosterman (2013) notes, I know what I know (substantially more about Harry's sex life, fistfight with his brother, and the royal tailor than I ever wanted to know) and what I don't know (lots).  

As Brumett notes (p. 42), "power is the ability to control events and meanings." Harry's relative powerlessness as the "spare," even couched as his role was in wealth and celebrity, appears in no small part to be driving the Sussexes' current pop culture blitz. Is he genuinely trying to set the record straight, or is he lashing out or seeking revenge? Is he cashing in on his celebrity because he's been cut off financially? Only Harry and Meghan know for sure. But each of these scenarios appear to be rooted in taking back their power and attempting to control the narrative. 

So, who cares? Certainly plenty of people seem to, if we're going by the sheer number of Spare copies sold on its release date (an astonishing 1.4 million copies). And I do too, but not about Harry and Meghan's celebrity and not about the monarchy, which I view as colonial, misogynistic, anachronistic, and more than a little ridiculous. Those views are steeped in my own perspectives and identities: as a woman, as a liberal, as an American. But I care--as a human, and perhaps most important, as a mother--about what this type of tell-all says about the experience of being human and of being born, as all of us are, into situations over which we have no control, and the ways in which we construct our own meaning and perspectives. 

Will the Sussexes' media campaign result in a redemption arc or, once the initial kerfuffle dies down, will they need to fight to remain relevant? What do you think, and how do your personal experiences and perspectives impact that view? 

Dancing to the Beat of Popular Culture: How Dance Evolves with the Times

 Dance has been an integral part of human culture for centuries, and it continues to evolve and adapt to the changing times. From traditional folk dances to contemporary hip-hop and everything in between, dance has played a prominent role in popular culture. The evolution of dance styles, dance moves and prominence in every day life can mirror key aspects about our society’s characteristics.

One of the most iconic examples of dance in popular culture is the rise of rock and roll in the 1950s. The music and accompanying dance moves of Elvis Presley and other rock and roll legends captivated audiences and helped to break down racial barriers. At a time when racial injustice was exploding onto the scene, the music and dance moves of the time seem to reflect the explosive and unprecedented nature of the discussion topics sweeping the nation and the world. The twist, the jive, and the cha-cha were just a few of the dance craze that swept through the country, inspiring countless imitators and becoming ingrained in popular culture. As the decades passed, dance continued to evolve with the times. The 1960s saw the rise of the Twist, and the 70s brought us Disco. The 80s was the era of the Breakdancing and Electric Boogie, while the 90s was the age of Hip-Hop. Each decade brought its own unique style of dance that reflected the cultural and societal changes of the time. 

In recent years, popular culture has been heavily influenced by the rise of social media and streaming platforms. Most recently, this has become especially prominent on the social media platform TikTok. The internet has made it easier than ever for dancers to share their work and connect with fans from all over the world. This has led to the emergence of a new generation of dancers and choreographers who are pushing the boundaries of what is possible with their bodies. Not only this, but major dance trends sweep the country with many teenagers, young adults, and even older generations getting in on the fun by mimicking, recreating, and adding their own twists to the trend. The global connectivity of the internet has connected cultures and people that have never before been able to interact in such an immersive way. The sharing of these cultures and practices adds to the trends and dances we see rocketing around the world on social media platforms. This reflects an increase in creativity, acceptance, and connection among our cultures across the world creating a global network of popular culture. 

Overall, dance has been and will continue to be an integral part of popular culture. From the rock and roll of the 1950s to the TikTok dances of today, dance has always been a reflection of the times and a powerful tool for self-expression. With the rise of social media and streaming platforms, the world of dance is more accessible than ever, and the possibilities are endless. As long as there is music, there will be dance, and the way it evolves and adapts to the times will continue to fascinate and inspire people all around the world. What aspects of dance in popular culture get your feet moving?

A Boring Dystopia: How the Dystopian Genre Stopped Being Escapism

Slide 25 of this week’s PowerPoint talked about how popular culture can be seen as a “mirror” highlighting key aspects about our society’s characteristics. It also spurred the question of if the dystopian genre had fallen out of favor, and what its quick “uprising” in popularity said about how young people saw the world.

Rewinding back to 2012, not only had I read all the “Hunger Games” books, but as an angsty pre-teen girl, I was the story’s target demographic. Therefore, I feel particularly qualified to speak on a potential answer to the question.

With the release of the third and fourth Hunger Games movies, there was a palpable drop in interest. Yes, the movie trailers continued to play on YouTube, but there was an absence of that brewing excitement in classrooms that was so evident with the first two movies. This is reflected in the box office numbers that I have linked below, with the second movie performing slightly better than the first. The third movie saw a profound drop of almost $100 million in box office revenue, with the 2015 release of the fourth movie doing even worse.

My theory as to the dystopian genre’s fall from grace is directly correlated to the perception of its growing target audience.

There is a sense that Divergent was the killing blow to the dystopian genre. Below, I have linked Sarah Z’s in-depth analysis on this. In short, the series was picked up simply because it rode “The Hunger Games'" coattails, and studios saw the potential for profit. The story itself skins bare the skeleton of the genre, playing out seemingly mandatory tropes like placing people into categories, having a protagonist that defies the rules, and having a generally oppressive dictatorship without much of an ideology.

As the dystopian pre-teen audience grew up, not only could they see the almost formulaic quality emerging in the newer movies, but young adulthood stopped the stories from being escapism. They instead began to feel more like a page from a real news paper, and the political upheaval quickly following the genre’s demise is further proof of that.

My hypothesis is that popular discussion threads like “a boring dystopia” (2016) became established in response to the genre glamorizing dystopia. The thread regularly points out the dystopian reality in how our society functions. A popular topic is the numerous ways in which people get negatively impacted by America’s healthcare industry. 

Anecdotally I remember many young people being upset at the hypocrisy of real-life companies creating make-up lines themed after the showy, but oppressive “Capital” regime in the Hunger Games story.

Do you think that it was mere genre fatigue that caused the dystopian series to go the way of the dodo or was it a combination of its initial audience growing up amid a newly polarized political landscape?

 

Sarah Z YouTube Channel Link: “The Rise and Fall of Teen Dystopias” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hxGGWn3gWA

Hunger Games Box Office Numbers: https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Hunger-Games#tab=summary

“A boring dystopia” article: https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/z1v9yh/hospitals_around_the_us_are_closing_pediatric/